3 ms·

Expert Confirms Authenticity Of Vinland Map

25 points by iamwil 17y ago

dtf 17y ago
The way they draw wiggly lines around the coast - is that supposed to be geographically correct? Or is it just shorthand for "beware: coast is wiggly"?
- liquidben 17y ago
  I think the artist was implying accuracy that he probably couldn't vouch for. So it's supposed to be geographically correct, but the advanced reader can take it as shorthand for wiggly coast.
mdasen 17y ago
Except that their "expert" is completely wrong. A simple trip to Wikipedia would show that he knows nothing. It's really bad when Wikipedia knows more about your field than you do. There have been several studies proving that the map is a forgery. The problem is that most people don't understand the scientific method. With the scientific method, you take a hypothesis (that the map is authentic) and then you try to find evidence disproving it. Once you have found evidence disproving the hypothesis, it doesn't matter how good a forgery it is, it's still a forgery. For real scientific analysis: http://vinland-map.brandeis.edu/explore/material/clark.php http://vinland-map.brandeis.edu/explore/material/clark.php http://vinland-map.brandeis.edu/explore/material/mccrone.php http://vinland-map.brandeis.edu/explore/material/mccrone.php http://vinland-map.brandeis.edu/explore/material/cahill.php http://vinland-map.brandeis.edu/explore/material/cahill.php Sure, there are things that point to it being authentic, but it isn't. If you're accused of murder, you had a grudge against the guy, people heard you say you'd kill him, and you bought a gun that day, that's all evidence that you might have killed him. But if a group of people all saw you at the time of the murder, then you didn't kill him no matter how compelling that other evidence is - in science, a single disproving fact invalidates supporting evidence because that's what truth is.
- antaeos 17y ago
  Sure, there are things that point to it being authentic, but it isn't. Speaking of ignorance of the scientific method... Look, this is what science is about. It's an accomplishment of multiplicitous scepticism over time. Imagine if people had harbored the same iron-clad certainty as to the completeness of Newtonian physics over Einsteinian. They'd probably say something along the lines of, "Sure, there are things that point to space-time distortion around heavy bodies, but that's not the case." And if they were feeling particularly sinister, they'd follow up with, "Look at the wikipedia entry for the facts." Many things once held to be true are revolutionized by advances in technology. There is absolutely no reason to question the rigour and knowledge with which the Danish expert approached this study. A cursory look (which we seem so fond of today) at his credentials reveals a man of some experience: http://www.kons.dk/dk/site.aspx?p=176 http://www.kons.dk/dk/site.aspx?p=176 Science is objective scepticism over many, many cycles. It's not a cursory look at a wikipedia page.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- bravura 17y ago
  '"All the tests that we have done over the past five years -- on the materials and other aspects -- do not show any signs of forgery," said Rene Larsen, rector of the School of Conservation under the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, during an interview with Reuters.' So they failed to refute the null hypothesis. In science, we call this "failure to find", NOT confirmation of the null hypothesis.
- lliiffee 17y ago
  Why did you not provide a link to the Wikipedia page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland_map#Authenticity_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland_map#Authenticity_contro... I see nothing "proving" that it is a forgery. In fact, the wikipedia page presents an unclear picture, very similar to the article and the expert. Without definitive proof that it is a fake, further evidence like this is helpful. There isn't always a smoking gun.
- 17y ago

25 points by iamwil 17y ago

dtf 17y ago

The way they draw wiggly lines around the coast - is that supposed to be geographically correct? Or is it just shorthand for "beware: coast is wiggly"?

liquidben 17y ago
I think the artist was implying accuracy that he probably couldn't vouch for. So it's supposed to be geographically correct, but the advanced reader can take it as shorthand for wiggly coast.

mdasen 17y ago

Except that their "expert" is completely wrong. A simple trip to Wikipedia would show that he knows nothing. It's really bad when Wikipedia knows more about your field than you do. There have been several studies proving that the map is a forgery. The problem is that most people don't understand the scientific method. With the scientific method, you take a hypothesis (that the map is authentic) and then you try to find evidence disproving it. Once you have found evidence disproving the hypothesis, it doesn't matter how good a forgery it is, it's still a forgery. For real scientific analysis: http://vinland-map.brandeis.edu/explore/material/clark.php http://vinland-map.brandeis.edu/explore/material/clark.php http://vinland-map.brandeis.edu/explore/material/mccrone.php http://vinland-map.brandeis.edu/explore/material/mccrone.php http://vinland-map.brandeis.edu/explore/material/cahill.php http://vinland-map.brandeis.edu/explore/material/cahill.php Sure, there are things that point to it being authentic, but it isn't. If you're accused of murder, you had a grudge against the guy, people heard you say you'd kill him, and you bought a gun that day, that's all evidence that you might have killed him. But if a group of people all saw you at the time of the murder, then you didn't kill him no matter how compelling that other evidence is - in science, a single disproving fact invalidates supporting evidence because that's what truth is.

antaeos 17y ago
Sure, there are things that point to it being authentic, but it isn't. Speaking of ignorance of the scientific method... Look, this is what science is about. It's an accomplishment of multiplicitous scepticism over time. Imagine if people had harbored the same iron-clad certainty as to the completeness of Newtonian physics over Einsteinian. They'd probably say something along the lines of, "Sure, there are things that point to space-time distortion around heavy bodies, but that's not the case." And if they were feeling particularly sinister, they'd follow up with, "Look at the wikipedia entry for the facts." Many things once held to be true are revolutionized by advances in technology. There is absolutely no reason to question the rigour and knowledge with which the Danish expert approached this study. A cursory look (which we seem so fond of today) at his credentials reveals a man of some experience: http://www.kons.dk/dk/site.aspx?p=176 http://www.kons.dk/dk/site.aspx?p=176 Science is objective scepticism over many, many cycles. It's not a cursory look at a wikipedia page.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
bravura 17y ago
'"All the tests that we have done over the past five years -- on the materials and other aspects -- do not show any signs of forgery," said Rene Larsen, rector of the School of Conservation under the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, during an interview with Reuters.' So they failed to refute the null hypothesis. In science, we call this "failure to find", NOT confirmation of the null hypothesis.
lliiffee 17y ago
Why did you not provide a link to the Wikipedia page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland_map#Authenticity_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland_map#Authenticity_contro... I see nothing "proving" that it is a forgery. In fact, the wikipedia page presents an unclear picture, very similar to the article and the expert. Without definitive proof that it is a fake, further evidence like this is helpful. There isn't always a smoking gun.
17y ago